Author
Topic: Boston Marathon Explosions (Read 5648 times)

I don't deny that there are times when military force is required to deal with terrorists. However, one of the big problems with using military force is the collateral damage it causes. It isn't just the lives lost and the damage done, though that would be quite bad enough on its own. It's the fact that everyone harmed by collateral damage can become a potential recruit for a terrorist organization.

While I understand that some around the world feel that our military activities are directed against them and that we are killing innocent civilians, let us remember WHY we went to Afghanistan. The Taliban was providing safe harbor to Bin Laden and providing a place for Al Queda to organize and plan attacks against the United States. Every country of this world has the right to defend itself. Our constitution requires that we "provide for the common defense."

While it is great to be able to shoot down incoming missiles (and, I feel the military should continue to invest in technology that can do this with increasing accuracy and reliability), we also have to realize that incoming missiles are not the only way that we might be attacked. 9/11 showed us that. A small group of people, given a place to organize and some financing, can do great damage. It is a reasonable thing then, if the military has strong believe that a group is organizing like that, to kill them before they kill us. A very practical way of doing that is a drone strike. That puts our military at a minimum risk.

The people of Afghanistan can decide if they want to harbor Al Queda in their country. And, in fact, many of them DO want to. They consider Bin Laden a hero. By doing so, they are putting themselves in harm's way, because we have a right to defend ourselves. The alternative is for them to say that 9/11 was a horrible thing and that they do not want any part of it. Don't provide safe harbor to those that would work toward another 9/11 plot.

Our military is trying to find and stop those that would do harm to us. War is a messy process. But, our military is not killing to make a statement, it is killing to accomplish a goal. That is the difference between our military and the two guys in Boston setting pressure cooker bombs.

I am flattered to be the recipient of your first post, welcome!

I know others have already responded to this but here goes...

1st I view the attacks on 9/11 the same way as the Boston bombing. We've done WAY more killing than the few thousand that died on 9/11 BEFORE 9/11. Sorry friend, we are terrorists also. People here (US) seem to think everything was going along great when all of a sudden out of the blue they decided to knock some buildings down. Well that is false. Our meandering in affairs all over the globe warrant other countries to protect themselves from US. We are the only country playing army man on every continent with hundreds of bases in other countries. We are the only country to have actually used a weapon of mass destruction.... on civilians no less. As pointed out earlier, when you kill several people trying to get one person, you didnt solve a problem at all, youve actually made it exponentially worse. You think those people whose small sons and daughters, or moms and dads, or grand parents, friends, aunts, uncles, and cousins just give us a pass when we "accidentally" murder their loved ones? Well, would you? They probably make plans to fight back. And the ONLY way to fight the US is the way they did on 9/11. No good strategist would plan to get into a military war, with us. The way to do the most damage is exactly what they did.

We had better take a step back and look at how we deal with other countries because thats what causes hostilities. Its just laughable to me that people think we're hated because we have McDonalds and "freedom" that doesnt account for why Europeans hate us too. Especially more wealthy and more free countries. Its our actions friend, our actions in the world make us a target for more 9/11's.

You think those people whose small sons and daughters, or moms and dads, or grand parents, friends, aunts, uncles, and cousins just give us a pass when we "accidentally" murder their loved ones?

Not that I approve in any way but Khadafi actually did seem to lose some steam after Reagan killed his kid. I'm really not a murderous person but to my mind assassination seems to be a much cleaner way to eliminate enemies. Let me clarify - I mean hit the right guy, not his family.

« Last Edit: April 25, 2013, 11:34:39 PM by LoriPinkAngel »

Logged

It doesn't make sense to let go of something you've had for so long. But it also doesn't make sense to hold on when there's actually nothing there.

Our meandering in affairs all over the globe warrant other countries to protect themselves from US. We are the only country playing army man on every continent with hundreds of bases in other countries. We are the only country to have actually used a weapon of mass destruction.... on civilians no less. As pointed out earlier, when you kill several people trying to get one person, you didn't solve a problem at all, youve actually made it exponentially worse. You think those people whose small sons and daughters, or moms and dads, or grand parents, friends, aunts, uncles, and cousins just give us a pass when we "accidentally" murder their loved ones? Well, would you?

I don't think that it is fair to characterize the "meandering" ways of the US in such a negative light. Like it or not, we live in an interconnected global society in which oil producing Arab states depend just as much on us as we do on them. Consider how rich a lot or Arab nations have become selling oil to western countries and how nations like Saudi Arabia have at times in the past counted on the US for protection by inviting them to establish military bases on their territory. I recently read a book by Steve Coll called Ghost Wars (which describes the CIA's involvement in Afghanistan from the mid-80's to 911), and from the profiles of the 911 terrorists it seems that protection for their family members was the furthest thing from their minds. The 911 hijackers were young men from affluent families who had the money to travel abroad to get a good education - if anything strong US/Saudi collaboration would be in their best interests if they were primarily thinking about self preservation. From what I can tell events like 911 and the Boston marathon bombings are motivated by religious extremism and not by some misplaced desire to settle a score.

Our meandering in affairs all over the globe warrant other countries to protect themselves from US. We are the only country playing army man on every continent with hundreds of bases in other countries. We are the only country to have actually used a weapon of mass destruction.... on civilians no less. As pointed out earlier, when you kill several people trying to get one person, you didn't solve a problem at all, youve actually made it exponentially worse. You think those people whose small sons and daughters, or moms and dads, or grand parents, friends, aunts, uncles, and cousins just give us a pass when we "accidentally" murder their loved ones? Well, would you?

I don't think that it is fair to characterize the "meandering" ways of the US in such a negative light. Like it or not, we live in an interconnected global society in which oil producing Arab states depend just as much on us as we do on them. Consider how rich a lot or Arab nations have become selling oil to western countries and how nations like Saudi Arabia have at times in the past counted on the US for protection by inviting them to establish military bases on their territory. I recently read a book by Steve Coll called Ghost Wars (which describes the CIA's involvement in Afghanistan from the mid-80's to 911), and from the profiles of the 911 terrorists it seems that protection for their family members was the furthest thing from their minds. The 911 hijackers were young men from affluent families who had the money to travel abroad to get a good education - if anything strong US/Saudi collaboration would be in their best interests if they were primarily thinking about self preservation. From what I can tell events like 911 and the Boston marathon bombings are motivated by religious extremism and not by some misplaced desire to settle a score.

No, meander is exactly what we do, and I am not just talking middle east. Weve knocked over and attempted to knock over democratically elected governments in Central and South America... to promote our own "interests." What youre failing to understand is that everyone doesnt do everything for financial reasons, so making money may be unimportant and irrelevant to some, especially if they have grievances. Your theory doesnt account for why closer easier targets arent hit, but the US is. All you have to do is look at our foreign policy to see why there is a culture of hatred for america across the board and a vast array of countries. Why do the French dislike America? They have freedom, McDonalds, and are "Christian" not to mention were probably one of the biggest factors in America getting independence from England...

You think those people whose small sons and daughters, or moms and dads, or grand parents, friends, aunts, uncles, and cousins just give us a pass when we "accidentally" murder their loved ones?

Not that I approve in any way but Khadafi actually did seem to lose some steam after Reagan killed his kid. I'm really not a murderous person but to my mind assassination seems to be a much cleaner way to eliminate enemies. Let me clarify - I mean hit the right guy, not his family.

Reagan is the worst president in history probably (well, maybe W). I would have appreciated a more expert attempt on him. However, we probably have no idea what he was working on for retaliation or how that affected the image of America in certain circles. Imagine if other countries had the military capabilities what they would likely do to us. Imagine if Iran had drones...

I spent much of the 1980's talking about the 1954 coup in Guatemala, and its bloody aftermath, as a cooperative effort between the US State Department, the CIA and a powerful US corporation (United Fruit) to overthrow the democratically elected government of Guatemala in order to protect US corporate interests. Now, the evidence is pretty overwhelming, and it is accepted as a dark corner of our history. http://www.stephenschlesinger.com/bitter.html

I saw the distinction that Chomsky made (in your wiki link) between conspiracy theories and institutional analysis. But during the early stages of an investigation, they can sometimes look rather similar.

If the emerging evidence in Honduras demonstrates that the farmers working the land that the mining companies want (and that the Honduran government has offered them) are in fact just run of the mill terrorists, (who are killing each other, or just random victims of violence, rather than being assassinated by government forces) and that the mining companies were really unconnected with the coup in any way, then I will grudgingly accept the evidence.

Would I be a conspiracy theorist if I believed in the:Tuskegee Experiment?War in Iraq was not about WMDsThat government officials are coming up with plans to keep groups from votingthe government orchestrated the destruction of the black panthersthe government protects terrorist groups like the KKKTupac Shakur is alive???

Would I be a conspiracy theorist if I believed in the:Tuskegee Experiment?War in Iraq was not about WMDsThat government officials are coming up with plans to keep groups from votingthe government orchestrated the destruction of the black panthers

I believe in all of the above. I would qualify the words "the government" in the last two. "Government" is a big, complex, multifaceted beast comprised of many individual human beings with a wide range of ambitions, causes and interests. I think that there are certainly some governmental officials who are consciously working to restrict voting rights among various groups. Same with the black panthers, and a wide range of different groups which were perceived as a threat, infiltrated, and ultimately dismantled.

I believe in all of the above. I would qualify the words "the government" in the last two. "Government" is a big, complex, multifaceted beast comprised of many individual human beings with a wide range of ambitions, causes and interests. I think that there are certainly some governmental officials who are consciously working to restrict voting rights among various groups. Same with the black panthers, and a wide range of different groups which were perceived as a threat, infiltrated, and ultimately dismantled.

Yes, I agree with the qualification of "government," the truth is that we cant discern between "the gubment" doing it and government officials with personal goals using their post to accomplish said goals, however sinister. Also, it is likely that other members of government know about these actions and do nothing to stop it. To me that qualifies as the government doing it.

Quote

I believe that there is significant evidence that certain government officials who have supported the KKK. I think (hope) that is a thing of the past.

this one is a lot easier. Look at any recent klan rally. Is there any police protection? Do they have the proper certs to hold the rally? Is the government protecting their free speech? The ask yourself would they allow Al Qaeda the same rights and protections? While it is pure speculation, the obvious answer is "no." Hell, look what they did to the Panthers who may or may not have been a terrorist organization.

this one is a lot easier. Look at any recent klan rally. Is there any police protection? Do they have the proper certs to hold the rally? Is the government protecting their free speech? The ask yourself would they allow Al Qaeda the same rights and protections? While it is pure speculation, the obvious answer is "no." Hell, look what they did to the Panthers who may or may not have been a terrorist organization.

Would I be a conspiracy theorist if I believed in the:Tuskegee Experiment?War in Iraq was not about WMDsThat government officials are coming up with plans to keep groups from votingthe government orchestrated the destruction of the black panthers

No, there are multiple forms of evidence for all of those things, although your use of "government officials" is too broad and you should say "elected representatives". You should use a specific branch of government and the specific names of those involved. Otherwise, it conflates into something else.

If you mean the First Amendment, you can insert any group you like and have it be true.

If you mean an elected official has been a member of or currently supports the KKK, that is likely true. Robert Byrd was once a member of the KKK. That David whatshisname from Louisiana was a grand wizard in the KKK (maybe he still is).

However, this means nothing in and of itself. It's like saying that I am a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and I am working to remove god from your life and burn down your church.

There's a fine line between The Blaze and a conspiracy theory. It's all conjecture until they step over the line and say something specific that can be either proven or refuted.

No, there are multiple forms of evidence for all of those things, although your use of "government officials" is too broad and you should say "elected representatives". You should use a specific branch of government and the specific names of those involved. Otherwise, it conflates into something else.

There's evidence because people actually investigated it instead of hiding their heads in the sand and claim others were conspiracy theorists. There is fairly decent reasoning behind the gubment being responsible for 9/11 attacks. I am not saying I subscribe to the theories, but the notion is not absurd at all once you look at everything we know in its entirety. Also if you find a way to discern between government officials using their post to get things done, and government itself, then let me know.

Quote

If you mean the First Amendment, you can insert any group you like and have it be true.

If you mean an elected official has been a member of or currently supports the KKK, that is likely true. Robert Byrd was once a member of the KKK. That David whatshisname from Louisiana was a grand wizard in the KKK (maybe he still is).

However, this means nothing in and of itself. It's like saying that I am a member of the Freedom From Religion Foundation and I am working to remove god from your life and burn down your church.

There's a fine line between The Blaze and a conspiracy theory. It's all conjecture until they step over the line and say something specific that can be either proven or refuted.

Well, yes it does mean something. It cant be proven because its unlikely that they would try it, but considering our stance that any "collateral damage" is okay when hunting Al Qaeda members across the globe, its safe to assume we would NOT be protecting their rights to hold rallies and march in our cities... rather they would have missiles thrown at them with reckless disregard for any other life... for merely existing. Again, also look how the government handled the Panthers in the 70's. The Klan is a terrorist group with more AMERICAN dead bodies under their belt than Al Qaeda. Yet are protected. Its a tragedy. I say treat them like Al Qaeda and kill them with drones with disregard for who else may die.

Quote

No, he's not. That's a conspiracy theory. Just like Elvis and Michael Jackson.

Our meandering in affairs all over the globe warrant other countries to protect themselves from US. We are the only country playing army man on every continent with hundreds of bases in other countries. We are the only country to have actually used a weapon of mass destruction.... on civilians no less. As pointed out earlier, when you kill several people trying to get one person, you didn't solve a problem at all, youve actually made it exponentially worse. You think those people whose small sons and daughters, or moms and dads, or grand parents, friends, aunts, uncles, and cousins just give us a pass when we "accidentally" murder their loved ones? Well, would you?

I don't think that it is fair to characterize the "meandering" ways of the US in such a negative light. Like it or not, we live in an interconnected global society in which oil producing Arab states depend just as much on us as we do on them. Consider how rich a lot or Arab nations have become selling oil to western countries and how nations like Saudi Arabia have at times in the past counted on the US for protection by inviting them to establish military bases on their territory. I recently read a book by Steve Coll called Ghost Wars (which describes the CIA's involvement in Afghanistan from the mid-80's to 911), and from the profiles of the 911 terrorists it seems that protection for their family members was the furthest thing from their minds. The 911 hijackers were young men from affluent families who had the money to travel abroad to get a good education - if anything strong US/Saudi collaboration would be in their best interests if they were primarily thinking about self preservation. From what I can tell events like 911 and the Boston marathon bombings are motivated by religious extremism and not by some misplaced desire to settle a score.

No, meander is exactly what we do, and I am not just talking middle east. Weve knocked over and attempted to knock over democratically elected governments in Central and South America... to promote our own "interests." What youre failing to understand is that everyone doesnt do everything for financial reasons, so making money may be unimportant and irrelevant to some, especially if they have grievances. Your theory doesnt account for why closer easier targets arent hit, but the US is. All you have to do is look at our foreign policy to see why there is a culture of hatred for america across the board and a vast array of countries. Why do the French dislike America? They have freedom, McDonalds, and are "Christian" not to mention were probably one of the biggest factors in America getting independence from England...

First off, I would just like to clarify the main point of my last post which was that the perpetrators behind events like 911 and the Boston Marathon Bombings were primarily motivated by religious extremism instead of a desire to mete out revenge on the United States. As such I can certainly agree with you that the US has not always had the best of motives when interfering with various events around the world. I would also agree that not everyone is motivated by financial gain, although financial gain certainly plays a major role in the foreign policies of countries like Saudi Arabia and Dubai. I think my disagreement with you is over the significance of the “culture of hatred” for the US that you correctly stated is present in the world. If this “culture of hatred” is the main driving force behind terrorist acts in the US then why don’t we see terrorist activities sponsored by France or by the various Central American countries? The former certainly has the financial means and the latter the requisite geographical proximity. And speaking of geographical proximity, I am assuming that this is what you meant when you talked about “closer, easier targets”? Al Qaeda and other such organizations certainly do hit the easier targets as well – it seems like barely a week passes without another car bomb going off somewhere in the Middle East. I do not deny that some terrorist acts are likely motivated by a desire for revenge (a good example would be 1983 Beirut barracks bombings); I just don’t think that 911 or the Boston marathon attacks fit into this category.

While I understand that some around the world feel that our military activities are directed against them and that we are killing innocent civilians, let us remember WHY we went to Afghanistan. The Taliban was providing safe harbor to Bin Laden and providing a place for Al Queda to organize and plan attacks against the United States. Every country of this world has the right to defend itself. Our constitution requires that we "provide for the common defense."

While it is great to be able to shoot down incoming missiles (and, I feel the military should continue to invest in technology that can do this with increasing accuracy and reliability), we also have to realize that incoming missiles are not the only way that we might be attacked. 9/11 showed us that. A small group of people, given a place to organize and some financing, can do great damage. It is a reasonable thing then, if the military has strong believe that a group is organizing like that, to kill them before they kill us. A very practical way of doing that is a drone strike. That puts our military at a minimum risk.

The people of Afghanistan can decide if they want to harbor Al Queda in their country. And, in fact, many of them DO want to. They consider Bin Laden a hero. By doing so, they are putting themselves in harm's way, because we have a right to defend ourselves. The alternative is for them to say that 9/11 was a horrible thing and that they do not want any part of it. Don't provide safe harbor to those that would work toward another 9/11 plot.

Our military is trying to find and stop those that would do harm to us. War is a messy process. But, our military is not killing to make a statement, it is killing to accomplish a goal. That is the difference between our military and the two guys in Boston setting pressure cooker bombs.

A 26-year-old Chinese engineer turned entrepreneur who is in Boston developing a start-up played one of the more interesting and dangerous roles in the Boston Marathon bombing manhunt. He was driving the Mercedes SUV that he'd leased when it and he were carjacked by the Tsarnaev brothers. He escaped when they stopped for gas. Ever since, this man has kept a very low profile, but he did give an exclusive two-and-a-half-hour interview to Boston Globe reporter Eric Moskowitz, who joins us now.

And to once again remind theists while they sing, pray, and ask for god's will to be done, real science with real human ingenuity over the long studies of medicine and industry have made these advances for amputees:

Adrianne Haslet-Davis displays a prosthetic leg used by a member of Team Semper Fi, Semper Fi Fund's program which promotes "recovery through sport," while in a bed at Boston Medical Center hospital. Haslet-Davis was injured in the bombings that occurred during the final stretch of the Boston Marathon on Monday, April 15, 2013. Source: Semper Fi Fund via Bloomberg